TEJWINDER SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB & ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PRESENT writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner claiming promotion to the post of Additional District & Sessions Judge from 30.05.2001 and as Civil Judge (Senior Division) from May, 1996, the date from which persons junior to him were promoted. The petitioner appeared in the Punjab Civil Services (Judicial Branch) Examination held in the year 1989, the result of which was declared on 03.07.1990. In the result published in Government Gazette on 14.09.1990, the petitioner was placed at merit position No. 17. On 08.02.1991, the petitioner was appointed and assigned seniority in order of merit determined by the Commission. In pursuance of such order, the petitioner joined on 15.02.1991 at Ludhiana.

(2.) THOUGH , as per the result, the petitioner was awarded '0' marks in Criminal Law Paper -III, but the petitioner continued to discharge his duties on the basis of merit declared by the Commission and on the basis of which appointment letters were issued to all the candidates. On 30.08.1997 i.e. approximately after more than 7 years of Gazette Notification, the petitioner sent a letter to the Registrar of the High Court intending to submit a representation to the Principal Secretary, Home and Administration of Justice Department, Punjab in respect of revising of merit in the Punjab Civil Services (Judicial Branch) examination result. In pursuance of such representation, the Punjab Public Service Commission in the revised result awarded the petitioner 101 marks out of 200 marks instead of '0' marks in the Criminal Law paper. Accordingly, the petitioner was placed below Shri Bal Krishan Mehta and above Shri Harjinder Pal Singh. The claim of the petitioner in the present writ petition is based upon the revised seniority and the fact that the down grading of Annual Confidential Report for the year 1995 -96 is illegal and against the judgment of this court in A.D. Gour Vs. Punjab & Haryana High Court at Chandigarh through its Registrar : 2004 (4) SCT 191.

(3.) THE petitioner submitted a representation on 19.02.1999 in respect of the remarks recorded in the year 1997 -98, which was declined vide communication dated 07.06.1999. The petitioner submitted another representation on 08.01.2001, but the same was also declined on 04.01.2002. The petitioner submitted another representation for up gradation of his remarks for the year 1995 -96 on 11.07.2002, which was declined vide communication dated 05.06.2003. The petitioner asserts that the learned Inspecting Judge has actually graded the petitioner 'B Plus (Good)' for the year 1995 -96, but the same was down -graded by the Full Court in view its decision taken on 25.07.1996.